Re: When to adopt a WG I-D

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Adrian,

I'm fine with this draft as long as it stays informational and is
viewed as a commentary on how what we are doing in the border land
between individual and formal working group documents, i.e. this is
not an IETF process text.

Names of ID file are a bit trickier than what I get from this draft

It is true that a document with a file name as:

draft-<wgname>-ietf-... uniquely is a working group document; you need
the approval of the wg chair(s) to have a draft with that file name
posted.

However, a draft with the file name:

draft-<individual>-ietf... may or may not be wg document, and it is
actually so when the the working group chairs states on the wg mailing
list that it is.

Admittedly this is often followed by a request to re-post it with
the common format of file names for wg documents, but it is not the
posting with the wg name format that makes it a wg document, it is the
announcement from wg chairs.

It is nowhere required to change the file name just because the
document has become a working group document. Stupid not to do it,
but not required. For example the appsawg does have two parked
*wg documents* that does not follow the naming convention above.

Now in section 5.1. you talk about a special case "documents supported
by a working", but that remains an individual draft but progress
according to the wg processes. I think that what is now RFC 3468 was
such a case; even though we at that did not talk about in those terms.

I think it would be clearer if you in section 5.1. just said that there
might be individual documents that is supported by a working group, and
that follows the naming conventions for individual documents.

/Loa

On 2013-05-28 11:32, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi,

Dave Crocker and I have this little draft [1] discussing the process and considerations for creating formal working group drafts that are targeted for publication.

We believe that this may help clarify some of the issues and concerns associated with this part of the process. We are targeting this as Informational (i.e. commentary on existing process, not new normative definition of process) and would like your input.

What is not clear?
What have we got wrong?
How should we resolve the remaining editor notes?

Thanks,
Adrian
(per pro Dave)

[1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-id-adoption-02.txt



--


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@xxxxx
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]